[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Given the Adobe plugin, how the heck
would they do that? That's just silly.
If someone wants support SVG, work over
the guys implementing the client, not the guys who
provide the hosting browser.
Would SVG work better as a behavior-attached
HTC or as an encapsulated plugin? Stuffing
it into as a HTML wrapped namespaced element set
is an awful thing to do to an animation
language. One thing one learns in graphics
is that slow rendering kills any interest.
MS is doing SVG a favor by letting
the vendor that actually does this well plugin
and not attempting to work in that market
directly. Why build their own plugin at
this point? It becomes yetAnotherFreebie.
Do you guys ever sit down and figure out
the costs of supporting these loss-leader
formats?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
10/17/2002 10:39:56 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
>This won't hunt, Paul. No one is suggesting that MS will
>torpedo SVG.
I think the concern is that they will lock out the dockworkers, leaving the
Good Ship SVG to rot in port with its valuable cargo unavailable to the consumers :-)
Sorry, couldn't resist ...
|
